Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed erection of one single storey detached dwelling and four two storey detached dwellings with garaging, associated landscaping and modification of existing access. (amended description)(as amended by plans received 4 March 2023). 

 

Prior to the consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

 

·        Cllr Guy Murray (on behalf of West Horsley Parish Council) (to object) and;

·        Mr Richard Goodall (Agent on behalf of the Applicant) (in support)

 

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Victoria Bates.  The Committee noted that the site was accessed from a private road leading from Ockham Road North.  The site currently formed part of Waterloo Farm and was bound by Horsley Camping Caravan Site to the south-west and residential properties on Nightingale Crescent to the south.  The site had been inset from the Green Belt in the Local Plan and formed part of the allocated site A39.  The site was also allocated within the 400 metre to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).

 

The application sought to deliver approx. 120 homes and the site formed a small parcel of land to the south of the allocation.  The site was close to the Green Belt as well as to residential development to the south and along the Ockham Road.  An application had also been submitted to the Council which was pending consideration for 86 dwellings.  Planning permission had also been granted elsewhere for a total of 35 dwellings plus four consented dwellings that were currently being constructed.  Access to the site would be taken from the private road.  The dwellings proposed are two storeys in height and had been designed in the Surrey vernacular using a palette of traditional materials and incorporated pitched roofs.

 

The plot which is closest to the boundary with properties on Nightingale Crescent had no upper floor windows proposed on the side elevation.  Along the boundary with the campsite were conifer hedges which would form the rear boundary of the gardens to plots 1 and 2 as well as mature trees to the rear of plots 3 and 5.

 

In summary, the proposal for residential development was acceptable in principle and would deliver 5 new dwellings within an allocated site.  The proposed dwellings would provide a good level of internal and external amenity for future residents and was fully compliant with the national space standards.  The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the area and would not result in any adverse impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring residents.  The County Highway Authority had raised no objections to the proposals subject to a condition to secure a package of highway improvements. The proposal was also considered to be acceptable in terms of the impact on trees, ecology, sustainability, flooding and drainage.  The objection from the Council’s recycling and waste officer had been withdrawn following the submission of a swept path analysis. Surrey Wildlife Trust had reviewed an updated ecology report and confirmed that there would be no unacceptable ecological impacts subject to additional conditions which had been included on the supplementary late sheets.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to securing a SANG and SAMM contribution. 

 

The Chairman permitted Councillor Catherine Young to speak in her capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.  The Committee noted concerns raised regarding a lack of adequate measures to prevent surface water flooding and drainage.  West Horsley was identified within Guildford’s flooding hotspots which was not mentioned in the officer’s report.  Surface water from Nightingale Crescent drained down to the site via the gardens of bordering properties and sewage was regularly seen after heavy rainfall.  Five houses with garages and an access road with large areas of paved driveways and the removal of the mature willow tree would exacerbate the flooding to this site and the adjacent gardens.  The requirement of Local Plan policies A39 4.5.1 and the Neighbourhood Plan Policy WH13 had not been met as the proposal did not demonstrate sufficiently that the development would adequately deal with surface water flooding on the site and locally.  The scale and height of the proposed buildings were not sympathetic to the existing built environment and out of keeping with the adjacent properties.  Nightingale Crescent and the nearby cottage densities were higher.  Garaging was not placed subservient to the plots and the gardens were extremely small.  The design and height of the buildings would be in conflict with the local character and setting contrary to Local Plan Policy, D1 place-shaping, DMP Policy D4 and policies WH2 and WH3.  West Horsley was located within a biodiversity opportunity area.  The Neighbourhood Plan identified on page 40 of policy DH12 a number of wildlife corridors that crossed the village and this site which would be severely disrupted by this development.  

 

The Planning officer in response to statements made by the public speakers and ward councillor confirmed that the south-west corner of the application site was prone to surface water flooding as the site was located within Flood Zone 1.  Therefore condition no 8 had been included which demonstrated that a sequential approach was deemed acceptable by Thames Water by which to dispose of surface water drainage.  With regard to biodiversity, the ecological reports had been updated owing to the fact that the original reports submitted had expired.  The updated report had concluded that there would not be any unacceptable impact upon biodiversity subject to condition number 16 which would secure enhancements to biodiversity and nature conservation.  With regard to dark skies, condition number 5 would restrict external lighting on the premises and any changes to that would require approval to be sought from the local planning authority.  It was also acknowledged that the properties and the plot size were not carbon copies of neighbouring properties on Nightingale Crescent and it was worth bearing in mind that this proposal was part of wider site allocation.  Therefore it had to be looked at in the emerging context of the site, not just what’s existing on the ground.

 

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised that the scheme proposed did not comply with policies WH2 and WH4.  The housing mix sought by WH4 was a mix of one, two and three bedroom open market homes.  The proposed scheme was for two, three and four bed open market homes.  The built form and transitional edge here was inappropriate given that the existing site provided a green barrier between the existing built up area as already extended by the building in front of Waterloo Farm and the existing houses in Nightingale Close.  The proposal also failed to comply with D1 and was not an example of good design.  It represented a form of over urbanisation which was overly dense with small gardens and concerns were also raised regarding surface water flooding.

 

The Committee also noted comments that the principle of development on this site was clearly established by the wider site allocation of A39.  The site was inset from the Green Belt and there was a housing need.  However, concerns were raised that the neighbourhood plan policies had not been adequately addressed in the officer’s report particularly in relation to the housing mix.  The proposal would also result in a higher density of development than the surrounding area and had uncharacteristically small gardens.

 

In response to the Committee’s concerns raised so far, planning officers confirmed that it was an allocated site and in planning terms the proposal represented a low density form of development with good gaps between the dwellings which helped to contribute towards the transitional point into the countryside.  Whilst concerns had been raised about drainage, Thames Water who were the statutory consultee had not objected.  There was also a condition which would adequately address the surface water drainage.  It was also confirmed that amended plans had been submitted during the course of the application and the height of the originally proposed dwellings were reduced of plots 1-3.

 

The Committee raised concerns regarding the sustainability of the development given that there were no air source heat pumps or solar panels proposed.  The narrowness of the access road which was a shared surface was a concern given it was not wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other and the location of the caravan site which used the same access.  Clarification was sought on how many trees would be removed onsite.

 

Owing to continued concerns raised, planning officers re-affirmed that the site was a comprehensive allocation with multiple site owners.  As a result the parcels of land coming forward were the shape they are because of the ownership constraints.  At the top of the site there was quite a short back garden but there was considerable space between that and the adjoining property.  With regard to housing mix the neighbourhood plan policy did not state that 1, 2 and 3 bedroom properties had to be built but that it was encouraged.  It was acknowledged that the proposal was a very small part of the overall site and that to provide smaller homes may not be viable.

 

With regard to concerns raised about the access road, County Highways did not raise objections but they had considered the impact of the caravans being towed along the access road with the campsite access at the end of the private road.  The passing point was deemed adequate for these purposes. 

 

The arboricultural report submitted confirmed that the trees to be removed from the site were all considered to be low classification trees and were not worthy of retention.  The Willow tree proposed to be removed was also in poor health.  The vast majority of trees on site would however be retained.

 

Planning officers also confirmed that the conditions included were necessary, reasonable and included sufficient detail for the Committee to make a decision on whether or not the site would deliver a sustainable development in accordance with the allocation and the Neighbourhood Plan.  

 

The Committee also noted comments that the scheme represented a well thought out development that had well spaced out dwellings that were sympathetic to the size of the plot.  The development was also a five minute cycle ride away from the closest train station.  The biodiversity onsite would also be increased by the proposal. 

 

The Committee wished to confirm who would maintain the trees and hedges and whether the proposal would include the installation of heat pumps and solar panels. 

 

Planning officers confirmed that condition 4 required the submission of an energy statement to the planning authority to demonstrate how the development would satisfy a 20% reduction in carbon emissions.  There were significant changes proposed to the Building Regulations that would require this to happen in future. If the Committee was therefore minded to approve the application, the requirement for heat pumps and solar panels could be made more explicit by the re-wording of condition 4 in consultation with the Chairman. 

 

A motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application.  The Committee voted on the following policies and reasons put forward to refuse the application by a show of hands:

 

Policy D1 Place Shaping – 4:10

 

Policy D4 Character and Design – 4:10

 

Policy WH2  Design Management in the Village Setting – 3:11

 

Policy WH4 Housing Mix  - 1:12

 

The vote was lost to refuse the application based on the above policies. 

 

A subsequent motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was carried.  This was subject to amend condition 4, which would be agreed in consultation with the Chairman, to include the requirement for alternative sources of energy to be used rather than gas.

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	Merel Rehorst-Smith			X
2	Joss Bigmore		X
3	Howard Smith	X
4	Bilal Akhtar	X
5	Vanessa King	X
6	Cait Taylor	X
7	Richard Mills	X
8	Lizzie Griffiths	X
9	Patrick Oven		X
10	David Bilbe	X
11	Jane Tyson	X
12	George Potter		X
13	Steve Hives	X
14	Fiona White	X
15	Sue Wyeth-Price		X
	TOTALS	10	4	1

 

 

In conclusion, having taken consideration of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee

 

RESOLVED to approve application 19/P/02096 subject to updated condition 4, as outlined above, as well an additional conditions 18, 19 and 20 and updated condition 16 as detailed on the supplementary late sheets.   

 

18. Prior to the commencement of development a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) for this site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. This should include the following:

a) description and evaluation of features to be managed;

b) ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management;

c) aims and objectives of management advised by the recommended mitigation/compensation actions for habitat and species as detailed in section 6 of the EIA;

d) appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives;

e) prescriptions for management actions, together with a plan of management compartments;

f) preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period;

g) details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan;

h) ongoing monitoring and remedial measures.

The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To increase the biodiversity of the site, to protect protected species and to mitigate any impact from the development.

 

19. No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following:

a)     Map showing the location of all ecological features

b)     Risk Assessment of the potentially damaging construction activities

c)     Practical measures to avoid and reduce impacts during construction

d)     Location and timing of works to avoid harm to biodiversity features

e)     Responsible persons and lines of communication

f)       Use of protective fencing, exclusion barriers and warning signs

The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: To protect protected species and to mitigate any impact from the development during the construction process.

 

20.  No development shall take place until an Arboricultural Method Statement (detailing all aspects of construction and staging of works) and a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with British Standard 5837:2005 (or any later revised standard) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed method statement and no equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purposes of the development until fencing has been erected in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan.      Within any area fenced in accordance with this condition, nothing shall be stored, placed or disposed of above or below ground, the ground level shall not be altered, no excavations shall be made, nor shall any fires be lit, without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. The fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details, until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been moved from the site.

 

Reason: To protect the trees on site which are to be retained in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality. 

 

Condition 16 to be reworded as follows:  No development shall take place until a scheme to enhance the biodiversity and nature conservation interest of the site, in line with the recommendations set out in the consultation response from Surrey Wildlife Trust dated 22 March 2023, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved.

 

Reason:  In order to preserve and enhance the natural environment including protected species.